Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Got a AT102 ED

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#51 amzking

amzking

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 659
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2017
  • Loc: Space Coast, Florida

Posted 04 April 2018 - 06:22 PM

If it's a super good lens it will do 100x per inch. 

Maybe I'll just wait and spend more money on a super good one then.  The 8 on the zoom is pretty wide, I will check that out first, maybe borrow something from the club.



#52 SeattleScott

SeattleScott

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6227
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2011

Posted 04 April 2018 - 10:29 PM

Bortle 5 or 25 doesn’t really matter. Max power is for small targets like planets or doubles which are bright enough already. Light pollution actually helps the view of planets. So don’t be afraid to go max rated. I have a 3.4mm HR on order for my ED103, which is rated for about 200x. This eyepiece will give me 234x. I sometimes Barlow it to 300x on the moon.

As for being able to push top refractors to 100x per inch, this isn’t unheard of, but you need to be realistic. Mostly I hear about that with about an 80mm premium Apo. My Vixen 103 could be considered a premium Apo, but 100x per inch would be 400x magnification. Seeing would almost never allow that. Maybe if you live in Florida. Also your scope is not as well corrected for CA. Even if the optical figure is perfect, and seeing is perfect, I doubt you would get great views at 400x due to the glass types used not correcting CA enough. Also, a target has to be really bright to view it at 100x per inch. Pretty much looking at the moon and nothing else. So how much do you want to spend on an eyepiece to look at the moon? I would stay closer to max rated so I could use it on more stuff than the moon and then maybe get a Barlow to hit 300x on the moon.

Scott
  • amzking likes this

#53 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 05 April 2018 - 02:45 AM

Is this the same scope that Astronomics is currently selling?

 

I really like the white tube and gray focuser.  The advertisement on Astronomics says this scope has a Aston Martin grey focuser and a white tube, though the photo they show looks like a white focuser. 

 

Is this the same scope?

 

https://www.astronom...ota_p20548.aspx

 

 

...Ralph



#54 Redbetter

Redbetter

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8245
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Central Valley, CA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 03:15 AM

If it's a super good lens it will do 100x per inch. 

Just about any scope will do 100x per inch.  The question is, what does one see at 100x/inch that is not visible at 50x/inch?  (Besides greatly enlarged diffraction rings and quite large airy disk, floaters, patterns on one's cornea, images of one's retinal vascular system, etc...)  

 

I will be interested to hear what you see on Jupiter and Mars at 400x with the scope.  When the seeing supports that sort of magnification for me, the level of detail available to the eye is great in larger apertures...but the refractors are still maxing out on detail back in the 50x/inch range.   


  • Terra Nova, Kunama and amzking like this

#55 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 05:17 AM

Is this the same scope that Astronomics is currently selling?

 

I really like the white tube and gray focuser.  The advertisement on Astronomics says this scope has a Aston Martin grey focuser and a white tube, though the photo they show looks like a white focuser. 

 

Is this the same scope?

 

https://www.astronom...ota_p20548.aspx

 

 

...Ralph

Yes.  I bought used local. Guy used it one time. I would like to turn it into a solar scope.



#56 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 05:24 AM

Just about any scope will do 100x per inch.  The question is, what does one see at 100x/inch that is not visible at 50x/inch?  (Besides greatly enlarged diffraction rings and quite large airy disk, floaters, patterns on one's cornea, images of one's retinal vascular system, etc...)  

 

I will be interested to hear what you see on Jupiter and Mars at 400x with the scope.  When the seeing supports that sort of magnification for me, the level of detail available to the eye is great in larger apertures...but the refractors are still maxing out on detail back in the 50x/inch range.   

My best ever views of a star image have been with my Taks that could do over 100x per inch. Planets become too dim at such high powers. I also have a insane ETX125 than can show insane star images at over 600x.  Most any object is too dim at 100x per inch, but a star image or the moon on a dead still nite. Two FS78's could do 400x on a brighter star and looked the best ever.

 

I have used over 1100x on dead still nites with 14.5 and 15" scopes that would show great detail of the planets.  You really can't beat the image of a Tak, but for the price of the AT102 ED for around $600 you can't go wrong.

 

I would think 400x on Jupiter would be pushing it, and mars when it is super close and bright every 17 years can take a little more power compared to jupiter.  It always seems to be in the soup low in the south when it is close to us. I have used 350x on jupiter with my FS78's, but it is too dim at that power.  


Edited by CHASLX200, 05 April 2018 - 05:28 AM.

  • Bomber Bob likes this

#57 rustynpp

rustynpp

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2004
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 05 April 2018 - 06:54 AM

Is this the same scope that Astronomics is currently selling?

 

I really like the white tube and gray focuser.  The advertisement on Astronomics says this scope has a Aston Martin grey focuser and a white tube, though the photo they show looks like a white focuser. 

 

Is this the same scope?

 

https://www.astronom...ota_p20548.aspx

 

 

...Ralph

Apologies in advance for the tangent, but this is something that really bothers me about Astronomics - there are several things wrong with the way the market their scopes. For the AT102 in particular:

 

  • The picture doesn't match the description
  • There's only one picture, and it's not a very good one (some other scopes don't even have pictures, just mockups)
  • They make you hunt through the ad for key information, rather than just having all the specs in one location (even though they have a "tech specs" tab for that express purpose)
  • Information in the description contradicts itself (the focuser is initially listed as a crayford, then a R&P)
  • Every single information tab is empty

You would never see these mistakes on Stellarvue or Explore Scientific's site, for instance, on which all the scopes have multiple professional pictures at different angles, succinct descriptions, and clear specs. I'm in the market for an AT102 and I can't help but feel pulled towards one of the other companies, because their sites give me more confidence in the brand. Maybe you think that's silly, but marketing matters. People make big purchases with their heart as much as their head, and you need to convince them that their investment in your company and your product is a good one.

 

/rant blahblah.gif


  • paul m schofield, Bomber Bob and BinoGuy like this

#58 Pat Rochford

Pat Rochford

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2008

Posted 05 April 2018 - 08:09 AM

Apologies in advance for the tangent, but this is something that really bothers me about Astronomics - there are several things wrong with the way the market their scopes. For the AT102 in particular:

 

  • The picture doesn't match the description
  • There's only one picture, and it's not a very good one (some other scopes don't even have pictures, just mockups)
  • They make you hunt through the ad for key information, rather than just having all the specs in one location (even though they have a "tech specs" tab for that express purpose)
  • Information in the description contradicts itself (the focuser is initially listed as a crayford, then a R&P)
  • Every single information tab is empty

You would never see these mistakes on Stellarvue or Explore Scientific's site, for instance, on which all the scopes have multiple professional pictures at different angles, succinct descriptions, and clear specs. I'm in the market for an AT102 and I can't help but feel pulled towards one of the other companies, because their sites give me more confidence in the brand. Maybe you think that's silly, but marketing matters. People make big purchases with their heart as much as their head, and you need to convince them that their investment in your company and your product is a good one.

 

/rant blahblah.gif

 

If I'm not mistaken, Astronomics is in the process of re-doing their website.  The information and image of the AT102ED was placed on the website early on when the particulars of the finished scope were still up in the air.  (The image showing the white focuser housing was a prototype.)  I'm assuming that the final specs and image will be corrected once the new web site is up and running.

 

The mockups you refer to are being used temporarily, as I don't think there was a prototype unit ready at the time the information was placed on the site.  Again, I'm sure this will be updated just like the 102.  Call them for whatever questions you have in the meantime though.  They've always been quite helpful to me when I've needed answers.  


Edited by Pat Rochford, 05 April 2018 - 08:11 AM.


#59 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 05 April 2018 - 08:45 AM

 I had both a FS-102 and TSA-102. Both were beautiful scopes and optically excellent. Both were big scopes for just 4" scopes and regardless, they were still just a 4" refractor. 4" is a good size but again, nothing special. 

 There is nothing special to me about a 4" refractor, regardless of the make. 

 

  The AT102 to me is a very smart scope and about what I would expect a 4" refractor to be. Its priced right, has great looks and great optics. Spending 4x as much for a Tak so Vega can look a little whiter or Jupiter can be a little more crisp didnt make any sense to me since its still again, just a 4" scope. 

 

  I didnt consider a 4" scope anything special till I looked through a 4" F/15. Aside from that, i perfer the look of planets through my C11 when I want to get upclose on Jupiter and follow the red spot transit the surface, for example.

 

 My SW120ED to me is what a 4" refractor wants to be but cant because its just a 4" scope.

 

  To me, the AT102 is the perfect 4" scope in looks, performance and cost and size. Its small enough to be considered a grab and go and has plenty of performance. The colors sure look great also.

 

 Regarding Astronomics advertisements on the AT102, non of that stuff maters to me. None of that distracts from the fact that the AT102 is an excellent visual scope and a little one also, relatively speaking. I've debated weather I should sell a whole slew of smaller scopes I have, I have half a dozen 80mm and 90mm achromats, some long tube classics, and just get me the AT102 and clear up some space. The Lunt 102 was another option. I just really like the color scheme of the AT102 and am happy to see Astro tech making such a smart practical scope at a realistic price, just slightly more than a similar size achromatic with better over all performance.

 

 ...Ralph 

 

 

My best ever views of a star image have been with my Taks that could do over 100x per inch. Planets become too dim at such high powers. I also have a insane ETX125 than can show insane star images at over 600x.  Most any object is too dim at 100x per inch, but a star image or the moon on a dead still nite. Two FS78's could do 400x on a brighter star and looked the best ever.

 

I have used over 1100x on dead still nites with 14.5 and 15" scopes that would show great detail of the planets.  You really can't beat the image of a Tak, but for the price of the AT102 ED for around $600 you can't go wrong.

 

I would think 400x on Jupiter would be pushing it, and mars when it is super close and bright every 17 years can take a little more power compared to jupiter.  It always seems to be in the soup low in the south when it is close to us. I have used 350x on jupiter with my FS78's, but it is too dim at that power.  



#60 amzking

amzking

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 659
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2017
  • Loc: Space Coast, Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 08:58 AM

Yes, that is the same scope And I was told by Royce at Astronomics yesterday that they are indeed redoing their website. I made a couple of comments about not being able to find things. :-)

#61 SteveG

SteveG

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7893
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 01:53 PM

I grabbed these from a sellers ad (Google Images). I must say, she's a beauty!

 

at102l.jpg

 

 

at102f.jpg

 

 

 


  • belgrade, Agatha, Bomber Bob and 3 others like this

#62 Redbetter

Redbetter

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8245
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Central Valley, CA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 04:59 PM

My best ever views of a star image have been with my Taks that could do over 100x per inch. Planets become too dim at such high powers. I also have a insane ETX125 than can show insane star images at over 600x.  Most any object is too dim at 100x per inch, but a star image or the moon on a dead still nite. Two FS78's could do 400x on a brighter star and looked the best ever.

 

I have used over 1100x on dead still nites with 14.5 and 15" scopes that would show great detail of the planets.  You really can't beat the image of a Tak, but for the price of the AT102 ED for around $600 you can't go wrong.

 

I would think 400x on Jupiter would be pushing it, and mars when it is super close and bright every 17 years can take a little more power compared to jupiter.  It always seems to be in the soup low in the south when it is close to us. I have used 350x on jupiter with my FS78's, but it is too dim at that power.  

This doesn't make sense to me. The star image is no longer a star image at even 50x/inch.  It is a diffraction image of the airy disk and first ring, and possibly more rings depending on the star and scope type. 100x/inch is useful for examining the diffraction pattern for companion stars either as bumps on rings, "snowmen", contacting airy disks, or elongation of the disk.  The first ring becomes detectable vs. the central airy disk to me at about 18x/inch in the various scopes I have tested from 60mm to 20".  The common rule of thumb is that it becomes visible around 25x/inch.

 

To not be able to see the first ring by 50x/inch one needs to use a star that is not particularly bright for the aperture.  Off the top of my head I don't recall where that is for a 4" or 5" scope.  An earlier post you made about the Trapezium being only four balls in a C5 (IIRC) at some very high power had me scratching my head as I would have expected it to be showing the first ring on the brighter star at least, but perhaps it isn't bright enough for the aperture.  I expect to see 6 stars in the 110 if the seeing is settled enough for that sort of power...and typically 5 even when the seeing is poor/middling.

 

When a star isn't bright enough to show the first ring at 50x/inch, all one is going to see is the spurious disk, and it becomes smaller in appearance to the eye with increasing magnitude/decreasing brightness because the periphery is not well enough illuminated.  I see this right up to the point that the magnification begins to exceed the seeing--the point at which very faint stars begin to resemble faint galaxies with stellar cores, and threshold stars appear more as tiny ghostly blur when seen at all/rarely as a stellar glint when the seeing snaps into focus for a fraction of a second.  Any magnification past this seeing limit makes the star less apparent rather than more so.  This I have confirmed with apertures from 60mm to 20" as well.  Fortunately, with the 60mm the seeing can be poor and still reveal threshold stars at around 50x/inch.

 

At any rate, it doesn't sound like you are really using 100x/inch on planets to get more detail since your are noting that it is too dim for that.  Instead you are talking about that magnification more in the context of what is used for double star observing, which is completely different type of observing (and one where floaters and such are not an issue from what I have seen.)  For perspective, a 4" scope will have an airy disk that measures roughly 1.36" (to the minima.)  The spurious disk (the part that is illuminated enough to see) will be somewhat smaller, perhaps 1" to 1.1".  At 400x that means a minimum airy disk size on a moderately bright star somewhere in the 400" range.  That is 6.7 arc minutes, or 0.11 degrees.  That is nowhere near a point, it is more than 1/5th the diameter of the Moon to the eye.  For a brighter star where the first ring is visible the effective angular diameter will be about twice as great at 400x.

 

Again, I will be interested in what specific details are observed on Jupiter at the limits.  You are about 9 degrees south of me, and have much better seeing than I ever get here, so excuses about Jupiter being in the muck won't fly.  With only 4" of aperture it should be easy to max out the scope on any good night.  I know what I can pick up with less well corrected 110ED on Jupiter even now in poorer seeing lower in the sky at 50x/inch, and what a 10" and 20" will do even with substantial seeing limitations at ~350x.   So I have some capacity to evaluate the descriptions of the image in a 4" at 100x/inch.



#63 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 05:53 PM

If I'm not mistaken, Astronomics is in the process of re-doing their website.  The information and image of the AT102ED was placed on the website early on when the particulars of the finished scope were still up in the air.  (The image showing the white focuser housing was a prototype.)  I'm assuming that the final specs and image will be corrected once the new web site is up and running.

 

The mockups you refer to are being used temporarily, as I don't think there was a prototype unit ready at the time the information was placed on the site.  Again, I'm sure this will be updated just like the 102.  Call them for whatever questions you have in the meantime though.  They've always been quite helpful to me when I've needed answers.  

The web site could use a tuning for sure.



#64 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 05:59 PM

This doesn't make sense to me. The star image is no longer a star image at even 50x/inch.  It is a diffraction image of the airy disk and first ring, and possibly more rings depending on the star and scope type. 100x/inch is useful for examining the diffraction pattern for companion stars either as bumps on rings, "snowmen", contacting airy disks, or elongation of the disk.  The first ring becomes detectable vs. the central airy disk to me at about 18x/inch in the various scopes I have tested from 60mm to 20".  The common rule of thumb is that it becomes visible around 25x/inch.

 

To not be able to see the first ring by 50x/inch one needs to use a star that is not particularly bright for the aperture.  Off the top of my head I don't recall where that is for a 4" or 5" scope.  An earlier post you made about the Trapezium being only four balls in a C5 (IIRC) at some very high power had me scratching my head as I would have expected it to be showing the first ring on the brighter star at least, but perhaps it isn't bright enough for the aperture.  I expect to see 6 stars in the 110 if the seeing is settled enough for that sort of power...and typically 5 even when the seeing is poor/middling.

 

When a star isn't bright enough to show the first ring at 50x/inch, all one is going to see is the spurious disk, and it becomes smaller in appearance to the eye with increasing magnitude/decreasing brightness because the periphery is not well enough illuminated.  I see this right up to the point that the magnification begins to exceed the seeing--the point at which very faint stars begin to resemble faint galaxies with stellar cores, and threshold stars appear more as tiny ghostly blur when seen at all/rarely as a stellar glint when the seeing snaps into focus for a fraction of a second.  Any magnification past this seeing limit makes the star less apparent rather than more so.  This I have confirmed with apertures from 60mm to 20" as well.  Fortunately, with the 60mm the seeing can be poor and still reveal threshold stars at around 50x/inch.

 

At any rate, it doesn't sound like you are really using 100x/inch on planets to get more detail since your are noting that it is too dim for that.  Instead you are talking about that magnification more in the context of what is used for double star observing, which is completely different type of observing (and one where floaters and such are not an issue from what I have seen.)  For perspective, a 4" scope will have an airy disk that measures roughly 1.36" (to the minima.)  The spurious disk (the part that is illuminated enough to see) will be somewhat smaller, perhaps 1" to 1.1".  At 400x that means a minimum airy disk size on a moderately bright star somewhere in the 400" range.  That is 6.7 arc minutes, or 0.11 degrees.  That is nowhere near a point, it is more than 1/5th the diameter of the Moon to the eye.  For a brighter star where the first ring is visible the effective angular diameter will be about twice as great at 400x.

 

Again, I will be interested in what specific details are observed on Jupiter at the limits.  You are about 9 degrees south of me, and have much better seeing than I ever get here, so excuses about Jupiter being in the muck won't fly.  With only 4" of aperture it should be easy to max out the scope on any good night.  I know what I can pick up with less well corrected 110ED on Jupiter even now in poorer seeing lower in the sky at 50x/inch, and what a 10" and 20" will do even with substantial seeing limitations at ~350x.   So I have some capacity to evaluate the descriptions of the image in a 4" at 100x/inch.

I don't even bother with planets when they are low in the south. Have not viewed saturn in 3 years and will not bother with jupiter for another 2 or 3 years.  Seeing is never good that low to the south.  The moon and star images are my only targets along with some low power open clusters like M35, 37 and the like.  I am a picky viewer and only view on near dead still nites when i can use crazy power. Colder and clear nites are for sweeping and open clusters only.  Thinking about selling it all and going deep into a solar scope and leave it at that and give the rest up.


Edited by CHASLX200, 05 April 2018 - 06:01 PM.


#65 BinoGuy

BinoGuy

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 561
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2014
  • Loc: Michigan

Posted 05 April 2018 - 06:18 PM

I don't even bother with planets when they are low in the south. Have not viewed saturn in 3 years and will not bother with jupiter for another 2 or 3 years.  Seeing is never good that low to the south. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree that they are punching through a LOT of atmo but I was getting some rather nice views of Jupes and Saturn (with good axial tilt) two to three weeks ago in the cold, still morning hours.  Besides, my East and SouthWest are completely blocked by trees so South is what I have to work with.  Watching the Galilean moons every day or two beats not seeing them at all for years in my book.

 

(also, I hope they fix the location and searching peccadillos at A.  It would be spiff to see all of the refractors, for example, at once.)



#66 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 06:22 PM

I don't necessarily disagree that they are punching through a LOT of atmo but I was getting some rather nice views of Jupes and Saturn (with good axial tilt) two to three weeks ago in the cold, still morning hours.  Besides, my East and SouthWest are completely blocked by trees so South is what I have to work with.  Watching the Galilean moons every day or two beats not seeing them at all for years in my book.

 

(also, I hope they fix the location and searching peccadillos at A.  It would be spiff to see all of the refractors, for example, at once.)

I have a roof to my south so no good.  I get heat from it all nite.


  • BinoGuy likes this

#67 Redbetter

Redbetter

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8245
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2016
  • Loc: Central Valley, CA

Posted 05 April 2018 - 08:20 PM

I don't even bother with planets when they are low in the south. Have not viewed saturn in 3 years and will not bother with jupiter for another 2 or 3 years.  Seeing is never good that low to the south.  The moon and star images are my only targets along with some low power open clusters like M35, 37 and the like.  I am a picky viewer and only view on near dead still nites when i can use crazy power. Colder and clear nites are for sweeping and open clusters only.  Thinking about selling it all and going deep into a solar scope and leave it at that and give the rest up.

 

At ~45 degrees from your locale, Jupiter isn't all that low.  Observing over a rooftop isn't ideal, but I suspect it is less of an issue for you than with Jupiter 9 degrees lower pointing over my 2 story from the backyard.  Even with that and the generally poor local seeing (unfortunately not limited to rooftop or in town) I get some passable nights for larger scopes, and the refractors are topped out on any good night.   Really there is nothing about your situation that suggests to me a 4" would be chronically limited by the seeing or altitude on Jupiter.  And this sort of scope is portable enough to use elsewhere on nights of good seeing. 

 

I guess I am more interested in the observing and what the equipment will show than acquiring and trading the stuff.  I had hoped you were going to demonstrate some details of what the scopes could do on Jupiter, but it again looks like that isn't going to happen. Sorry to have bothered you.



#68 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 05 April 2018 - 08:29 PM

At ~45 degrees from your locale, Jupiter isn't all that low.  Observing over a rooftop isn't ideal, but I suspect it is less of an issue for you than with Jupiter 9 degrees lower pointing over my 2 story from the backyard.  Even with that and the generally poor local seeing (unfortunately not limited to rooftop or in town) I get some passable nights for larger scopes, and the refractors are topped out on any good night.   Really there is nothing about your situation that suggests to me a 4" would be chronically limited by the seeing or altitude on Jupiter.  And this sort of scope is portable enough to use elsewhere on nights of good seeing. 

 

I guess I am more interested in the observing and what the equipment will show than acquiring and trading the stuff.  I had hoped you were going to demonstrate some details of what the scopes could do on Jupiter, but it again looks like that isn't going to happen. Sorry to have bothered you.

Ask me in a few years.



#69 Peter Besenbruch

Peter Besenbruch

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7056
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Oahu

Posted 06 April 2018 - 01:22 PM

I grabbed these from a sellers ad (Google Images). I must say, she's a beauty!

Looks vaguely like a telescope. ;)


  • Cassiesdad likes this

#70 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 06 April 2018 - 08:06 PM

Out with the scope tonite since it is clear.  Just so easy to find deep sky stuff with no finder and just using a 1.25" Tele Vue Plossl.  All the big open clusters look super with a 15mm Tele Vue Wide field. Got a solar wedge coming so we will see how it does on the sun soon.  It would be hard to keep just one scope if i had to pick the ETX125 or the 102 ED.


  • Auburn80 and amzking like this

#71 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 07 April 2018 - 10:38 AM

Well the sun looks great, but not much to see.



#72 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 08 April 2018 - 04:30 AM

Is the AT-102 the Orion 102ED with a different name? Is this also the WO Megrez 102ED F/7? They all look the same, very high quality looks and great performance.

 

Is the tube diameter smaller than the larger 102 Achromats from Orion and everyone else. Most of the 102's of that vintage use 114mm tube rings. I think the Megrez uses 105mm tube rings?

 

Does that sound about right for the AT-102ED, in that is has the smaller tube diameter?

 

 

... Ralph



#73 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    Hubble

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 18540
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted 08 April 2018 - 06:07 AM

Is the AT-102 the Orion 102ED with a different name? Is this also the WO Megrez 102ED F/7? They all look the same, very high quality looks and great performance.

 

Is the tube diameter smaller than the larger 102 Achromats from Orion and everyone else. Most of the 102's of that vintage use 114mm tube rings. I think the Megrez uses 105mm tube rings?

 

Does that sound about right for the AT-102ED, in that is has the smaller tube diameter?

 

 

... Ralph

I can check the OD.



#74 aa6ww

aa6ww

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011
  • Loc: Sacramento, Calif.

Posted 08 April 2018 - 07:19 AM

I checked their website, its 105mm. Thats nice. is a small compact 4" scope. They should be. There's no reason to make these larger.

ED scopes are excellent visual scopes and now more then ever they are now coming in at reasonable prices. 

Maybe slightly better visually then their acrho F9.8 cousins in a compact size. 

 

 

This is still probably slightly better color corrected then the Astro Telescopes 102mm F/11, though I bet its close and I bet the F/11 is still an easier scope to get high magnification out of. 

 

Over all. I think these two scope would be very close for star splitting and planetary sharpness and details.

 

A cool comparison to do a shoot out on especially since a slight amount of color slips through the AT ED 102.  

 

...Ralph



#75 KevH

KevH

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 917
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2010
  • Loc: Maine

Posted 08 April 2018 - 08:33 AM


This is still probably slightly better color corrected then the Astro Telescopes 102mm F/11, though I bet its close and I bet the F/11 is still an easier scope to get high magnification out of.


...Ralph


I have previously owned both and the f7 ED had much better color correction compared to the f11 achro. Not even close.
  • SteveG, Terra Nova, gene 4181 and 1 other like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics